• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Perfect symmetry by chance???

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
I assume it because Intelligent Design was always primarily about getting religion - i.e. Christianity - into public schools, especially in the US.

It started with explicitly Christian creationism; that got ruled unconstitutional. So they stripped it down and called it "creation science"; that got ruled unconstitutional, too. So they stripped creation science down and called it "Intelligent Design"; this got ruled unconstitutional, too.

The whole thing has always been about getting something that's as Christian as possible into public school science curricula, but not so overtly religious that it's declared a church-state violation.

The "intelligent designer" was always the Christian God; that was the whole point. It's also why the ID crowd never talks about "intelligent designers", plural. If they were being honest, they would recognize that there's nothing in the public face of ID that would necessarily require all "intelligent design" to be by the same designer... but they don't, because the ID movement is nothing more than an effort to insert Christianity into public schools and hypothesizing multiple intelligent designers would run counter to this purpose.
I don't know what any of that is about.

I just don't see how Man understanding how the universe works somehow disproves the existence of God.

God claimed that there were laws governing the heavens, so why is it when Man discovers these laws that they start phasing God out?

It just doesn't make sense to me.
 
Last edited:

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Men have nipples because of the timing of embryonic sex determination, the development of nipples starts before the testosterone levels change. But because it doesn't have a disadvantage it was never selected against. Again, makes sense in light of evolution but no sense for creation.

Imperfect isn't the issue, there's unnecessary flaws which are fatal or serious enough to not call it 'intelligent' but 'inept.' Hence the earlier examples and why it's called 'argument of poor design.'

I look at evolution and the progression of biology and see no reason to assume there was ever an intelligent force at work, and lots of better reasons to conclude there wasn't.
I know why men have nipples. That was a joke.

How does the development of species disprove the existence of God?
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
They show how the world works without resorting to the supernatural. The phenomena previously pointed to as proofs of God's hand keep being explained by ordinary, unguided physics and chemistry; no magic necessary.
These things you have said about God and His authority are based in ignorance of what He has actually said about Himself and how the universe works.
What are you attributing to Him that ordinary, natural causes can't account for?
The existence of ordinary, natural causes.
Well there's the rub. You're basing your opinion on emotion rather than thought.
The same could be said of you.

None of these things disprove the existence of God anymore than the belief in God disproves the claims of science.

You are making a huge leap to assume that just because we can observe and understand aspects of the universe that there cannot be a God.
Your feelings are irrelevant -- at best an argument from incredulity or ignorance. Tell us what you think. What conclusion does a critical analysis of observed facts lead you to?
No truth discovered and understood by Man disproves the existence of God.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I don't know what any of that is about.
It's about how ID started and remained nothing more than a political ploy. It was never - and still isn't - an actual scientific theory.

I just don't see how Man understanding how the universe works somehow disproves the existence of God.

God claimed that there were laws governing the heavens, so why is it when Man discovers these laws that they start phasing God out?

It just doesn't make sense to me.
But what reason do you have to believe that God put "laws governing the heavens" in place? Any facts? Any evidence?

From where I sit, it seems like a case of the Incredible Shrinking God:

- two hundred years ago, it was "God created every creature directly in its current form."
- then, it became "God created 'kinds' and the kinds evolved... but only a bit."
- then, it became "God caused the 'spark of life' and things evolved from there."
- now, it's "God put in place the laws that led to life."

At every stage, the Christians have been promising that the evidence for God is just beyond the horizon. But when we get to that horizon, they say "oh - maybe it's over that next horizon." Any time your God comes in contact with facts, it shrinks back out of range.

You don't have a theory based on the evidence; you have a predetermined conclusion and a set of excuses for why none of the evidence supports your conclusion. This is why your god is irrelevant to a viewpoint that's derived from evidence.

Edit: and this doesn't disprove your "God of the Gaps"; it just means that the upper limit for your god continues to shrink as human knowledge expands. I won't deny that the non-existence of God accords with the facts in every measurable way, but I also concede that a god that doesn't interact with the universe in any way we've been able to measure also accords with these same facts (though I've never seen any reason to assume such a god).
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I just don't see how Man understanding how the universe works somehow disproves the existence of God.
No-one's saying it disproves God. Where are you coming up with this? It doesn't disprove pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either, but I'll wager you don't believe in these.
I'm saying without actual evidence there's no reason to believe in any of these, and the traditional phenomena attributed to God -- famine, flood, earthquakes, plants, animals, &c have been explained as natural phenomena, with no appeal to magic needed.
God claimed that there were laws governing the heavens, so why is it when Man discovers these laws that they start phasing God out?
When did God claim this? I never heard Him make any such claim; never met the man.
Did you speak to Him, or are you pulling this from folklore and ancient manuscripts?
How does the development of species disprove the existence of God?
Whoever claimed it did?
These things you have said about God and His authority are based in ignorance of what He has actually said about Himself and how the universe works.
Agreed. So what did He actually say and where is your evidence? Do you have a link to an interview?
The same could be said of you.
My evidence, the scientific evidence, is based on observation, testing and peer review. It's falsifiable and gets modified as new evidence accumulates.
Evidence for God, or for the need for a God, is folklore and without any empirical evidence.
None of these things disprove the existence of God anymore than the belief in God disproves the claims of science.
Why do people keep bringing up this disproof argument? No-one ever claimed disproof. Science doesn't disprove Jehovah, Zeus, Ahura Mazda or the FSM. Science simply claims that the world can be accounted for by ordinary chemistry, physics, &c, and that an appeal to divine creation is unnecessary and without supporting evidence.
You are making a huge leap to assume that just because we can observe and understand aspects of the universe that there cannot be a God.
No truth discovered and understood by Man disproves the existence of God.
Again, no-one's claiming there cannot be a God. It's just that there's neither evidence for nor a need to posit a God.
One doesn't believe everything till a given thing is disproved. That would be absurd and lead to belief in millions of unsupported and contradictory claims.
The reasonable approach is to believe in nothing till evidence for something comes to light.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I know why men have nipples. That was a joke.

How does the development of species disprove the existence of God?
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
That is, you can't prove a negative, see flying spaghetti monster or Russell's teapot analogies.

That said, I've already talked about why the evidence is against the notion of intelligent design in previous posts.
 

Kueid

Avant-garde
evidence suggests that this thread is useless for those who don't know how to find usefulness in it, if you know what I mean..
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
It's about how ID started and remained nothing more than a political ploy. It was never - and still isn't - an actual scientific theory.
I don't know anything about that. I only used the term Intelligent Designer[er] because that was what the OP used.

I'd rather use the title "God" and I would never claim that my belief in Him was a scientific theory, although I do believe Him to be a God of science.
But what reason do you have to believe that God put "laws governing the heavens" in place? Any facts? Any evidence?
I'm sure I have nothing you would find credible.

However, I would claim that that shows your lack rather than mine.
From where I sit, it seems like a case of the Incredible Shrinking God:

- two hundred years ago, it was "God created every creature directly in its current form."
- then, it became "God created 'kinds' and the kinds evolved... but only a bit."
- then, it became "God caused the 'spark of life' and things evolved from there."
- now, it's "God put in place the laws that led to life."

At every stage, the Christians have been promising that the evidence for God is just beyond the horizon. But when we get to that horizon, they say "oh - maybe it's over that next horizon." Any time your God comes in contact with facts, it shrinks back out of range.
None of what you just shared describes my God or any of my beliefs concerning Him.
You don't have a theory based on the evidence; you have a predetermined conclusion and a set of excuses for why none of the evidence supports your conclusion.
I wouldn't say that. All I did was experiment upon His Word and I live my life based on the outcome of that experiment.
This is why your god is irrelevant to a viewpoint that's derived from evidence.
Derived from your narrow description of "evidence", yes.
Edit: and this doesn't disprove your "God of the Gaps"; it just means that the upper limit for your god continues to shrink as human knowledge expands.
What does the term "God of the Gaps" mean? He has never referred to Himself in that way before.

I still don't see how anything shrinks as Man's knowledge expands. I am becoming more and more sure.
I won't deny that the non-existence of God accords with the facts in every measurable way, but I also concede that a god that doesn't interact with the universe in any way we've been able to measure also accords with these same facts (though I've never seen any reason to assume such a god).
You don't see His interactions because you are not using the proper equipment to detect and measure it.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
No-one's saying it disproves God. Where are you coming up with this? It doesn't disprove pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either, but I'll wager you don't believe in these.
A lot of people on this thread are claiming that these findings disprove the existence of God.

I don't appreciate the implication that God is comparable to pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

My belief in God does not make me delusional or infantile.
I'm saying without actual evidence there's no reason to believe in any of these, and the traditional phenomena attributed to God -- famine, flood, earthquakes, plants, animals, &c have been explained as natural phenomena, with no appeal to magic needed.
Ok. I get it. You do not have a deep regard for God or those who believe in Him. Stop rubbing my face in it.

I claim that I have a universe of evidence, but you lack the equipment to detect or measure them.
When did God claim this? I never heard Him make any such claim; never met the man.
Did you speak to Him, or are you pulling this from folklore and ancient manuscripts?
Yes I speak to Him in prayer. I receive most of my knowledge about Him from the testimonies of Apostles and Prophets.

You don't have to meet a person to know things about that person.
Whoever claimed it did?
People on this thread.
Agreed. So what did He actually say and where is your evidence? Do you have a link to an interview?
I'm going to keep my pearls to myself for the time being. Your false sense of superiority has closed your mind to considering anything outside your world view.
My evidence, the scientific evidence, is based on observation, testing and peer review. It's falsifiable and gets modified as new evidence accumulates.
Evidence for God, or for the need for a God, is folklore and without any empirical evidence.
Are you saying that Man knows everything? We understand how everything works?

You can believe what you want, but stop trying to make your limited perception look like a fault on my end.
Why do people keep bringing up this disproof argument? No-one ever claimed disproof. Science doesn't disprove Jehovah, Zeus, Ahura Mazda or the FSM.
Because people keep trying to claim that there is no God based on scientific findings.

Ask Stephen Hawking.
Science simply claims that the world can be accounted for by ordinary chemistry, physics, &c, and that an appeal to divine creation is unnecessary and without supporting evidence.
A limited perspective.
Again, no-one's claiming there cannot be a God. It's just that there's neither evidence for nor a need to posit a God.
You don't see a need for God? Why is that?
One doesn't believe everything till a given thing is disproved. That would be absurd and lead to belief in millions of unsupported and contradictory claims.
I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe in anything.

We should not believe in everything until a given thing is disproved. We should also not disregard something just because it remains to be proven.
The reasonable approach is to believe in nothing till evidence for something comes to light.
That is a good approach. That is the approach I took. I experimented upon His Word with no expectations and I discovered truth.
 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
A lot of people on this thread are claiming that these findings disprove the existence of God.
Post numbers please.

I don't appreciate the implication that God is comparable to pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
That's nice.
But the fact remains that to a lot of people he is.

I claim that I have a universe of evidence, but you lack the equipment to detect or measure them.
I suspect it more likely that my standard for evidence is much higher.
At least when it comes to god.

Your false sense of superiority has closed your mind to considering anything outside your world view.
Kettle, meet Pot...

Because people keep trying to claim that there is no God based on scientific findings.
Source please.
And be specific.
Merely claiming that so-and-so said it does not count.
You will need to present the quote and the source for the quote.

Ask Stephen Hawking.
Source please.
And be specific.
Merely claiming that so-and-so said it doe snot count.
You will need to present the quote and the source for the quote.

A limited perspective.
Bold empty claim

You don't see a need for God? Why is that?
Outside fear of god keeping some theists from being murderous rapists or worse, no, I see no need for god.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe in anything.

We should not believe in everything until a given thing is disproved. We should also not disregard something just because it remains to be proven.
I suspect you have "disproven" and "proven" reversed in the above quote.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Prestor Johs post: 4861915 said:
I don't appreciate the implication that God is comparable to pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The comparisons are made on the basis of equal lack of empirical evidence.

Ok. I get it. You do not have a deep regard for God or those who believe in Him. Stop rubbing my face in it.
I claim that I have a universe of evidence, but you lack the equipment to detect or measure them.
My apologies if I've caused any offense, but

Yes I speak to Him in prayer. I receive most of my knowledge about Him from the testimonies of Apostles and Prophets.

You don't have to meet a person to know things about that person.

People on this thread.

I'm going to keep my pearls to myself for the time being. Your false sense of superiority has closed your mind to considering anything outside your world view.

Are you saying that Man knows everything? We understand how everything works?

You can believe what you want, but stop trying to make your limited perception look like a fault on my end.

Because people keep trying to claim that there is no God based on scientific findings.

Ask Stephen Hawking.

A limited perspective.

You don't see a need for God? Why is that?

I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe in anything.

We should not believe in everything until a given thing is disproved. We should also not disregard something just because it remains to be proven.

That is a good approach. That is the approach I took. I experimented upon His Word with no expectations and I discovered truth.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Post numbers please.
You are right.

Going through the posts again I realized that no one claimed that the discoveries of science disproved the existence of God. In fact, many posters went out of their way to claim that those discoveries did not disprove the existence of God.

I suppose the opinions shared by a few that the discoveries of science were proving that the idea of God being unnecessary got me thinking they were claiming that they proved that He did not existence.

I was wrong and I jumped the gun.
That's nice.
But the fact remains that to a lot of people he is.
That fact is irrelevant.

Does the fact that there are more people in the world who believe that He exists than there are those who believe that He does not invalidate anyone’s opinion?

How should the fact that there are those who do not believe that He exists change which implications I appreciate or not?
I suspect it more likely that my standard for evidence is much higher.
At least when it comes to god.
I disagree.

You limit your perspective to only the five physical senses when we are capable to perceive with many more.

The fact that I have not seen God does not mean that I have not perceived Him in some other way.

The fact that no amount of physical evidence could prove the existence of God does not mean that He does not exist.
Kettle, meet Pot...
Give me an example.
Source please.
And be specific.
Merely claiming that so-and-so said it doe snot count.
You will need to present the quote and the source for the quote.
I already spoke on what had been said on this thread and here is a link to Stephen Hawking claiming that there is no God,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html
Bold empty claim
If your perception includes only the five physical senses, then it is limited.

We are capable of more.
Outside fear of god keeping some theists from being murderous rapists or worse, no, I see no need for god.
Your opinion is that the only reason that believers in God do not murder or rape others is because they are afraid of God’s wrath?

It could not be love for others? A sense of morality? Humility? Patience? Or anything else encouraged by God?
I suspect you have "disproven" and "proven" reversed in the above quote.
Nope.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Seems to me that symmetry is more likely -or strictly "natural" -than asymmetry.
Asymmetry would, IMO, more likely indicate that which could move something from its natural equilibrium -such as creativity.

If you equally divide 1 into 2 -you already have symmetry.

Also... Even with apparent assymmetry, there is some sort of balance overall -when you consider more than the asymmetry.

I recently planted a lemon tree which was actually a branch from another tree.

It was very asymmetrical -and had many branches leaning to one side.
Once rooted, a very large and long branch -larger and longer than any other - grew in the opposing direction.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Prestor Johns post: 4861915 said:
I don't appreciate the implication that God is comparable to pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The comparisons are made on the basis of equal lack of empirical evidence.

Ok. I get it. You do not have a deep regard for God or those who believe in Him. Stop rubbing my face in it.
I claim that I have a universe of evidence, but you lack the equipment to detect or measure them.
My apologies if I've caused any offense. It's not a question of my regard for God or believers, it's a question of evidence. I'm thinking your evidence is largely subjective of scriptural. How would one detect or measure subjective evidence? Why should one accept scriptural evidence? It's apocryphal. They're fifth or sixth hand accounts, self contradictory, heavily edited, cherry-picked, and written by people with no scientific knowledge or who are simply repeating hearsay.

Yes I speak to Him in prayer. I receive most of my knowledge about Him from the testimonies of Apostles and Prophets.
Apostles and prophets like Lao Tse, Buddha, Vyasa, Zarathustra, or Tenskwatawa? How does one choose which revelation to believe?

I'm going to keep my pearls to myself for the time being. Your false sense of superiority has closed your mind to considering anything outside your world view.
Yes, that's my point.

Are you saying that Man knows everything? We understand how everything works?
I'm saying we know more today than the authors of the scriptures, and we know a great deal more about how things work. We have a methodology for acquiring and testing knowledge,which the ancients did not.

You can believe what you want, but stop trying to make your limited perception look like a fault on my end.
I'm aware enough of my limits not to make unsupported declarations or resort to appeals to magic. I'm aware that my perception is a great deal more extensive than that of the Biblical authors.

You don't see a need for God? Why is that?
I think the burden of an explanation is more on you than me. Why do you feel the need for a God? Many people live rich, satisfying lives with no belief in God.

We should not believe in everything until a given thing is disproved. We should also not disregard something just because it remains to be proven.
We may consider it an abstract possibility, but till there's some concrete evidence for it, the reasonable position would be to withhold belief.

That is a good approach. That is the approach I took. I experimented upon His Word with no expectations and I discovered truth.
How does one "experiment on His Word?"[/quote]
 
Top